SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (53977)8/12/2012 10:14:23 PM
From: Farmboy4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
There just simply can be no way this country can elect this idiot again, for another four years ...

Just no possible way...



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (53977)10/16/2012 10:48:41 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Solyndra Memorial Tax Break
How Energy passed out tax-loss credits that mean taxpayers will pay twice for failure..
October 15, 2012, 7:22 p.m. ET

Perhaps you thought the Solyndra scandal amounted to a $535 million government loan that will never be repaid. No such luck. In the latest twist, Solyndra's investors could be rewarded for their failure, thanks to a tax benefit the Administration handed out in a bid to evade political accountability.

The Internal Revenue Service exposed this double Solyndra debacle last week in the U.S. bankruptcy court for the district of Delaware, which is unwinding the defunct solar-panel maker. The IRS formally objected to Solyndra's Chapter 11 reorganization plan, claiming its "principal purpose is tax avoidance."

***
Having sold off its manufacturing plant, fired nearly 1,000 workers and proven the non-viability of its business model, Solyndra's only real assets are what the IRS calls "tax attributes." These are between $875 million and $975 million in net operating losses that can reduce future taxable income, which the IRS values as high as $350 million. Before it went toes up, Solyndra also accumulated $12 million in solar tax credits that can reduce tax liabilities dollar for dollar.

Tax-loss carry-forwards are routine but worthless if a company can't turn profits to pay taxes on. So Solyndra's owners are asking the court to liquidate the rest of the business and contribute a net $6.7 million to pay off creditors for pennies on the dollar. A holding corporation will then emerge from Chapter 11 that won't make products or employ workers, but it will get the Solyndra tax offsets.

The dummy company is owned by Argonaut Ventures I LLC, Solyndra's largest shareholder and the primary investment arm of the George Kaiser Family Foundation. Mr. Kaiser is a Tulsa oil billionaire who bundled campaign checks for Mr. Obama in 2008. The other owner is Madrone Partners LP, a California venture outfit.

Solyndra's Energy Department loan closed in September 2009, and a year later it was back asking for more as it bled cash. To stave off bankruptcy, the company asked Energy to release the loan's remaining $95 million immediately, instead of in monthly drawdowns, and to restructure the terms (it had already technically defaulted). The emails that follow are from the negotiations that began in December 2010 and are either exhibits in the IRS objection or come from the 300,000 pages of documents the House Energy and Commerce Committee uncovered in its investigation.

Argonaut and Madrone were prepared to commit a new $25 million but needed the government either to take a haircut or subordinate taxpayer repayment rights to new senior debt. Solyndra's private financing rounds were failing because new investors were coming in behind the government's $535 million.

"The DOE really thinks politically before it thinks economically," Steve Mitchell, an Argonaut managing director, wrote to Mr. Kaiser on December 7, 2010. The Department of Energy gnomes demanded $75 million and refused to invite the political blowback that signing away taxpayer claims to private financiers would invite, but Mr. Mitchell wouldn't go above $25 million. So he wrote that he "politely moved the conversation toward how we should use the time to start discussing the bankruptcy process . . . To me it was clear that the DOE folks were somewhat caught off guard that we weren't going to bail out the company."

Argonaut and Madrone could walk away in part because they had so little skin in the game. Solyndra had 73% debt to 27% equity, not the 65%-35% split that the Treasury Department wanted before Energy boxed it out of a 2009 due-diligence review in the push to get stimulus dollars out the door. Realizing that Argonaut-Madrone would rather liquidate than throw good money after bad, Energy eventually gave in.

Meanwhile, Mr. Kaiser's mind was on the net operating losses (NOLs). He mused to Mr. Mitchell that "I would go a long way to preserve the NOLs," and he suggested that the final decision to ante up to $75 million could be "subject to our better understanding of whether the NOLs can conceivably be preserved in a semi-liquidation (that is, somehow maintaining the line of business and avoiding change of control)."

In February 2011, Energy signed off on a deal that would subordinate its repayment interests to a new $75 million loan to Solyndra from Argonaut and Madrone. The two owners would open this tranche of senior debt to other investors for equity warrants. But under the Energy term sheet, those warrants would then bounce back to the Argonaut-Madrone holding company if Solyndra became defunct. That gave Argonaut-Madrone 99.9% control of the net operating losses.

Solyndra went bust in September 2011, but Mr. Kaiser referred in August emails to "the consolation prize NOL" and wrote that "we could get the same benefit out of a new entity in there without absorbing the costs of resuscitating this one." In other words, the holding company will merge with another profitable Argonaut business that can use the tax breaks.

The irony is that the law that created the loan program specifically bars the Energy Department from taking a junior debt position. So Energy simply produced a novel legal analysis claiming that this prohibition applies only when a loan originates, not when it is modified.

One staffer at the White House budget office wrote at the time that "I think they have stretched this definition beyond its limits" and noted in particular that the government "is better off liquidating the assets today than restructuring under DOE's proposal." Fly-speckers at the Treasury agreed.

***
Under the bankruptcy plan, taxpayers will recoup $27 million at most on Mr. Obama's $535 million "investment." The IRS and Energy Department are now asking the courts to reject the deal, because bankruptcy is designed to give a business a second chance, not goose a tax return.

But this is little more than an ex post facto double-cross. Energy created the tax avoidance problem in the first place by gifting Argonaut and Madrone the net operating losses to delay the Solyndra crack-up that was fast becoming inevitable. That left taxpayers worse off than if they simply let Solyndra fail.

This raises a question or two for the President who once called Solyndra a "testament to American ingenuity and dynamism" and who keeps accusing Mitt Romney of supporting tax breaks for outsourcing and corporate jets, which he doesn't. Here one of Mr. Obama's own billionaire pals is trying to sidestep a federal tax bill amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of an epic crony capitalist fiasco.

The larger problem is Mr. Obama's economic model that seeks to picks winners and losers and misallocates capital. That's bad enough. But does he have to stick it to taxpayers twice for the same failed investment?

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (53977)10/20/2012 12:21:32 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama’s presidency
By Stephen Dinan
Thursday, October 18, 2012

Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday.

Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011, and state spending on those programs brought the total to $1.03 trillion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Budget Committee.

That makes welfare the single biggest chunk of federal spending — topping Social Security and basic defense spending.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee who requested the Congressional Research Service report, said the numbers underscore a fundamental shift in welfare, which he said has moved from being a Band-Aid and toward a more permanent crutch.

“No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,” the Alabama conservative said. “Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible, and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.”

Welfare spending as measured by obligations stood at $563 billion in fiscal year 2008, but reached $746 billion in fiscal year 2011, a jump of 32 percent.

Complex story

The numbers tell a complex story of American taxpayers’ generosity in supporting a varied social safety net, including food stamps, support for low-income AIDS patients, child care payments and direct cash going from taxpayers to the poor.

By far, the biggest item on the list is Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, which at $296 billion in federal spending made up 40 percent of all low-income assistance in 2011. That total was up $82 billion from 2008.

Beyond that, the next big program is food stamps at $75 billion in 2011, or 10 percent of welfare spending. It’s nearly twice the size it was in 2008 and accounts for a staggering 20 percent of the total welfare spending increase over those four years.

Several programs to funnel cash to the poor also ranked high. Led by the earned income tax credit, supplemental security income and the additional child tax credit, direct cash aid accounts for about a fifth of all welfare.

Mr. Sessions’ staff on the Senate Budget Committee calculated that states contributed another $283 billion to low-income assistance — chiefly through Medicaid.

Richard Kogan, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that while the dollar amounts for low-income assistance are growing, they still represent about the same slice of the budget pie when viewed over the long run. He said the costs may have spiked during the recession, but are projected to drop back to more normal levels once the economy recovers.

“In short, whatever one thinks about the merits or costs of these programs, other than Medicaid, they are contributing nothing to long-run budgetary pressures,” he said.

As for Medicaid, where major spending increases have been made, Mr. Kogan said even there it may be a savings.

“Medicaid provides health care at a noticeably cheaper price than Medicare does, and both are cheaper than the cost of private-sector health insurance,” he said. “The problem is not that the programs are badly designed — it is that the entire health care system in the U.S. is much more expensive than in any other advanced country.”

Combined with several programs also directed at health care, the category made up 46 percent of total welfare spending in 2011.

Mr. Kogan said the cash assistance figure was “a shockingly small amount of money” in the scheme of things.

“Virtually all the rest is in the form of in-kind assistance: Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, housing vouchers, Pell Grants, LIHEAP and child care vouchers; or in the form of direct services, such as community health centers, Title 1 education, foster care, school lunch and Head Start,” he said.

Rather than straight transfers, those other programs provide support for services Congress has deemed worthy of funding. SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that used to be called food stamps; LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; WIC is the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program; and Pell Grants provide assistance for college costs.

The conservative Heritage Foundation said roughly 100 million Americans get benefits from at least one low-income assistance program each month, with the average benefit coming to around $9,000.

The think tank estimates that if welfare spending were transferred as straight cash instead, it would be five times more than needed to lift every American family above the poverty line — though many of the programs help those above the poverty line.

Mr. Sessions’ Budget Committee staff said that at current projections, the 10 biggest welfare programs will cost $8.3 trillion over the next decade.

The Congressional Research Service looked at obligations for each program as its measure of spending. It included every program that had eligibility requirements that seemed designed chiefly to benefit those with lower or limited incomes. The report looked at programs that had obligations of at least $100 million in a fiscal year, which meant some small-dollar welfare assistance wasn’t included.

Political wrangle

The report was released as President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney fight over the size and scope of government assistance.

Mr. Obama has taken heat from Republicans for a new policy that Republicans argue would remove work requirements from the 1996 welfare reform. The administration said it is merely adding more flexibility for states, which still would have to prove the law is meeting its jobs goals.

Mr. Romney was damaged last month by caught-on-camera remarks in which he said 47 percent of Americans are dependent on government and see themselves as victims.

In Tuesday’s debate, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Obama for overseeing a 50 percent increase in the number of people on food stamps, which has risen from 32 million to 47 million.

But the two men also share some agreement on safety-net programs. In the debate, Mr. Romney said he wants to increase the Pell Grant program to help low-income students pay for college.

washingtontimes.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (53977)4/3/2013 9:01:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
About Those Tax Breaks for Big Oil . . .
The attack line about 'special' deals for the industry doesn't stand up to scrutiny..
Updated April 2, 2013, 6:52 p.m. ET

By MERRILL MATTHEWS
Obama has been telling America for months that special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry must come to an end. The presidential demand always prompts puzzled gazes among tax and energy-industry experts, who ask: What special tax breaks?

Thanks in part to a bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland and ranking member on the House Budget Committee, it's all much clearer now. The congressman has inadvertently called attention to the fact that those special tax breaks just for the oil and gas industry don't exist. Mr. Van Hollen proposes to create some very special punishments instead. Regardless of the bill's fortunes on Capitol Hill, it has already performed a public service by illuminating the fallacy behind assaults on the industry.

Mr. Van Hollen's ''Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act" would raise taxes on individuals—what he calls the "Fair Share on High-Income Taxpayers"—and effectively hike taxes on the oil and gas industry by changing the way their taxes are calculated. The problem with the bill is that the so-called tax breaks the industry would lose are not specific to oil and gas at all. They are widely available to lots of industries.


Title III of the act goes after oil and gas with: a limitation on the section 199 deduction; a prohibition on using last-in, first-out accounting for major integrated oil companies; and a modification of the foreign tax-credit rules.

Section 199 is part of the domestic production activities deduction that was included in the American Job Creation Act of 2004, which passed with strong bipartisan support, especially in the Senate. It currently provides a 9% tax deduction from net income for businesses engaged in "qualified production activities" in the U.S. Those activities include manufacturing a product, selling, leasing or licensing it, and engineering and software activities related to that production. The deduction was intended to encourage domestic manufacturing, and in the hope that the tax break could provide a slight competitive advantage against foreign competition.

The oil and gas industry, especially in its extracting and refining, is heavily involved in U.S. manufacturing. Congress already penalizes the industry by only giving it a 6% deduction, rather than the 9% that other industries receive.

But whatever the percentage allowed, this isn't a special deduction for oil and gas. Many other manufacturing industries—including farm equipment, appliances and pharmaceuticals—take the deduction. Mr. Van Hollen's bill refers to the disqualification of two industries from these benefits as a "Special Rule for Certain Oil and Gas Companies." In terms of fairness, it's like telling oil company workers that they can't take the home-mortgage deduction anymore because they work for politically targeted companies.

Mr. Van Hollen also draws a bead on the last-in, first-out accounting method known as Lifo. Those who had accounting classes will recall that there are several widely accepted ways to value a company's inventory. Lifo is one of them. It assumes that the last inventory in is the first used, sold or distributed—an accounting method often used by commodity-type industries. Mr. Van Hollen proposes to reduce those inventory options available to the oil and gas industry, even though they are, and will remain, widely available to most U.S. companies.

Critics of the industry claim that there are other ways of appraising oil and gas inventory that would result in a higher value, and thus companies would have to pay more taxes. But that's like offering individuals the choice of taking the standard deduction or itemizing on their returns, and then demonizing a subset of people who choose the approach that minimizes their income tax obligation.

The third provision of Mr. Van Hollen's bill seeks to change the foreign tax-credit rules—but only for integrated oil and gas companies. American companies operating in foreign countries have to pay the taxes imposed by those governments. The U.S. government generally gives companies operating in foreign countries a tax credit to offset the foreign taxes paid, so the companies are not taxed twice on the same foreign income. That generally includes royalties paid to foreign countries.

Mr. Van Hollen's way of repealing this tax break for one particular industry is to assert that the royalties cannot be called a tax when they apply to that industry: "[A]ny amount paid or accrued by a dual capacity taxpayer which is a major integrated oil company to a foreign country or possession of the U.S. for any period shall not be considered a tax." If an oil company can't call a foreign royalty a tax, then it can't get the foreign tax credit.

Ironically, USA Today just published the top-10 list of companies that paid the highest U.S. income taxes as of 2012, and oil industry companies took three of the slots. Number one was Exxon Mobil at $31 billion, followed by Chevron at $20 billion, and sixth was ConocoPhillips at $8 billion. That is about $60 billion in taxes among them, more than the other seven companies on the list—including Apple and Microsoft combined. Don't look for a presidential attack on Apple or Microsoft anytime soon.

Mr. Matthews is a resident scholar at the nonpartisan Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.

online.wsj.com